Landis Comes Out Swinging

If you saw the note on Neil Browne’s Browne Eye Blog yesterday, rumor was that Floyd Landis would be on Larry King Live tonight. Given the rather humorous nature of the post that Browne’s update was attached to, I wasn’t sure if he was kidding, or if it was for real. So I emailed Neil, and he told me that to the best of his knowledge Landis would actually be on Larry King’s show.

Not wanting to miss the opportunity to see what Landis has to say about the latest saga emanating from across the pond, I set the DVR to record Larry King Live. And, at the appointed hour, my wife and I tuned in to see if Floyd would really be on the telly. Sure enough, in the lead-in King showed pictures of Floyd and said he’s got an exclusive interview — an interview which was sandwiched between a bunch of talking heads speculating about the meaning of Tiger Woods’ upcoming pseudo-press conference tomorrow (apparently no questions will be allowed for the media who might attend Woods’ statement) and Priscilla Presley, who was promoting a new Lost Wages (er, that’s Las Vegas) show called “Viva Elvis.” (Full disclosure: I turned off the TV shortly after Presley’s portion began. I’m not a big fan of musicals, even ones about “The King.”)

I’m not entirely sure Larry King’s interview with Landis was completely exclusive, as Floyd did give a brief statement by email to the LA Times a couple of days ago (and also an answer to a follow-up question here), but it does seem like the first time since the arrest warrant stories broke that Floyd has spoken at length to a member of the press. Those who tuned in got to see Landis relaxed and confident in answering questions posed by one of the tougher interviewers in the business.

A few key points that Landis made during the brief interview:

One, he didn’t hack into LNDD’s computers

Two, he hasn’t received any summons or request to appear in front of the French judge regarding the hacking

Three, he doesn’t know any more about what the judge and prosecutor in Nanterre are after than what’s been published

And somewhere in there, he cracked a smile and was able to laugh at how humorous the situation is. I’m hoping that the good folks at CNN will see fit to put Landis’ interview out on the Interwebs, so that those who missed it can see for themselves. Over the weekend, I’ll try to transcribe the interview.Update:No need, courtesy of Jeff, here’s the official CNN transcript. Landis’ interview is about one-third of the way down the page.

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania …

One subject briefly alluded to by Dr. Brent Kay, who accompanied Floyd during the Larry King interview, was the news that Joe Papp pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to distribute performance enhancing drugs he imported from China. According to this Associated Press article, the charges cover the time from September 2006 to September 2007. Which means that at the time Joe Papp was testifying about his own use of performance-enhancing drugs and the toll it took on him and his life during the Landis versus USADA arbitration hearings at Pepperdine University School of Law, he was also operating a business distributing what the sporting community lovingly calls “dope.”

Joe Papp is a complicated character, from what I can see. Other than the spin that USADA was able to get in the media from Papp’s appearance on the stand, he had no direct evidence to offer that related to whether or not Floyd Landis did what he was accused of doing before Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France. When the panel that heard the case released their ruling, they chose not to consider either Papp’s testimony or Greg LeMond’s testimony, rightly noting that neither had information that related directly to the charges at hand.

I’ve always been puzzled by what Papp got out of the whole experience. Back in August 2007, in this post, I noted:

[H]ere’s the thing that puzzles me about Papp’s involvement in the Landis case: From what I see of his suspension (he got the full two-year suspension that a first time user would get), and the reality of his situation (his career as a pro cyclist was finished, so whether he got a two-year ban or a lifetime ban wouldn’t much matter), what did he really get out of testifying for the prosecution? I can see what USADA got: Someone willing to chronicle his own experience with drugs as a way of suggesting how Floyd Landis might have done it. But Papp had no direct knowledge relating to Landis, all he could talk about were his own experiences.

Maurice Suh, one of Landis’ attorneys during his battle to clear his name, asked a rather pointed question of Papp during cross examination in those original hearings. While I don’t have the exact quote right now, the question was on the order of, “Are you aware that your testimony today could lead to drug trafficking charges?” Suh’s question had to do with Papp’s description of bringing performance-enhancing drugs back to the US from South America. And here we are, almost three years later, and Joe Papp is staring at a potential 10 years behind bars for, of all things, drug trafficking. The source of his contraband was different than what he testified about, but still, it amounts to the same thing.

It leaves me wondering, would the court of public opinion looked as favorably on Papp’s testimony if they knew he was still engaged in drug trafficking as he testified for USADA’s benefit? And would USADA have used Papp as a witness if they knew? (Or did they know, and they chose to ignore his activities?)

In the time since then, Joe Papp played a part in USADA’s doping case against former Rock Racing cyclist Kayle Leogrande. But for all his help to the American anti-doping officials, Papp still seems to have gotten nothing in return. If USADA told Joe Papp that they would stand behind him for testifying at the Landis hearing and helping out in other investigations, then what failed to mention was that not only would they stand behind him, they’d be out the door, down the hallway, past the city limits and 1000 miles away.

There’s a lesson in Papp’s case, but it’s probably not the lesson that Travis Tygart and the folks at USADA want athletes to learn. If you’re caught doping, and caught up in distributing doping products or know something about how the drugs are distributed, there is no real reason to cooperate with the anti-doping authorities. Unless you’ve got a sharp lawyer who can negotiate a rock-solid deal to reduce your suspension, and who can also keep the Feds off your back, you’re better off shutting up and accepting the suspension. Problem is that USADA, and other agencies like them, will have a tough time making headway in the doping wars if the people they catch have no incentive to spill what they know.

Rather than ridding sports of doping, illicit performance enhancement could actually be driven further underground. Talk about unintended consequences.

Q. You said you have been cooperating
RESLING SPORTSCRIPT (719) 632-6391

1001
1 with the U.S. Attorneys’ offices?
2 A. That’s right.
3 Q. And which U.S. Attorneys’ offices
4 are you cooperating with?
5 A. Okay. I met with the U.S.
6 Attorneys’ office in the Southern District of
7 California.
8 Q. Which is in San Diego, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And did you meet with any member of
11 U.S. attorneys’ office in New York?
12 A. I did not.
13 Q. So the only U.S. attorneys’ office
14 you’re cooperating with was one in San Diego?
15 A. The only U.S. attorneys’ office
16 where I traveled to speak with representatives
17 of the federal government was in San Diego.
18 Q. I just wouldn’t include just the
19 places you’ve traveled to. I’m just talking
20 about any contact with any — how about this?
21 Have you talked to any member of the
22 United States Department of Justice about doping
23 violations?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And which representatives of the

1002
1 Department of Justice?
2 A. Those based in the San Diego office.
3 Q. Just those in the San Diego office?
4 A. That’s correct.
5 Q. And that’s in conjunction with the
6 doping case, correct?
7 A. I don’t know what it’s in
8 conjunction with. I’m not privy to the details
9 of their investigation.
10 Q. Well, what was the purpose for you
11 to meet with them?
12 A. To share information.
13 Q. And what kind of information did you
14 share with them?
15 A. The same kind of information I’m
16 sharing here today.
17 Q. So you were sharing information with
18 them in conjunction with the doping violation,
19 correct?
20 A. I shared with them the same kind of
21 information that I’m sharing here today.
22 Q. Have you been notified that you were

Page 1033:
Q. I’d like to show you Part 14, the
14 anti-doping rules of the UCI, and I’d like to
15 turn your attention to the definition of
a potential subject of their investigation?
24 A. I have not.
25 Q. So you don’t know whether you are a
RESLING SPORTSCRIPT (719) 632-6391

1003
1 subject or not a subject of their investigation,
2 correct?
3 A. As of this time, I have not been
4 notified that I’m a subject of their
5 investigation.
16 trafficking.
17 Do you see that the definition of
18 trafficking is to sell, give, administer,
19 transport, send, deliver, or distribute a
20 prohibited substance or prohibited method to any
21 person either directly or through one or more
22 third parties, but excluding the sale or
23 distribution of a prohibited substance, for a
24 genuine and legal therapeutic purposes. And
25 that the penalty for trafficking is
RESLING SPORTSCRIPT (719) 632-6391

1031
1 substantially greater than two years, even on a
2 first offense.
3 Did you know that?
4 A. I wasn’t aware of that.
5 Q. Did anybody here talk to you about
6 resolving your trafficking case —
7 A. No, they did not.
8 Q. — in exchange for your testimony
9 here today?
10 A. No. No one talked to me about it in
11 any context.
12 Q. Is this trafficking a component of
13 what you were discussing with the U.S.
14 attorney’s office in San Diego?
15 A. No, it’s not.

Someone on one of the cycling forums pointed out another article that stated that Joe Papp was already cooperating with federal authorities (U.S. District attorney, not USADA) at the time of the Landis hearing, May 2007. They raised the possibility that some of the time period covered by the plea bargain may have been in cooperation with the government.

If so, it’d be weird that he’s still up for five years in prison. Maybe he’s the king of getting bad deals. But it would be just as weird if he were “cooperating” with federal officials, and still kept carrying on drug deals that he was hiding from them.

Both articles say the same thing. Papp faces up to five years in prison for each charge of conspiracy. Two charges at five years a piece gives the worst case scenario that he would be in prison for 10 years, if the judge ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, rather than concurrently.

If there’s a plea bargain, and if this is what he’s getting, then he’s definitely “the king of getting bad deals.”

There’s certainly more than meets the eye in his case. I expect there might be a few more twists and turns before everything is said and done.

Debby,

No worries. If CNN doesn’t post the clip to view, I’ll take the time to write up a transcript.

strbuk,

Those curling irons are dangerous … oh, wait, you mean that funny sport where they sweep the ice ahead of a heavy stone that’s kind of like bocce, with a Scottish twist.

Ha, I missed the whole Floyd interview because I too turned it off once I saw ‘Cilla with those two clowns promoting their show…any idea if Floyd might pursue an appeal of his case because of Papp’s character issues, not that the damage hasn’t already been done

The way the anti-doping system works, I’m not sure whether Floyd would be able to appeal. I think that the CAS hearings held in New York a couple of years back were the end of the line as far as the doping charges go, short of going into either the Swiss or American judicial system.

Thanks Jeff and Barbara. The clip wasn’t on the site last night (probably takes them a bit to digitize and place out on their own web sites). I’ve updated the post, as you’ve no doubt seen, with the Landis segment right at the top.

Thanks for the link to Brown Eye. I thoroughly enjoyed the reference to LNDD’s Apple II-E computer.

Back to the Larry King interview, Floyd states clearly that he has never been served with a legal summons or request to appear in Nanterre. Given the cast of characters involved across the pond, specifically Pierre (aka: “I don’t have a clue as to the legal definitions of the words ‘summons’ or ‘subpoena’ and don’t know the difference between ‘national’ and ‘international’ either) Bordry and Judge Thomas (aka: the dog whisperer, otherwise known as Dr. Dolittle) Cassuto, it’s not surprising, but their stupidity and gamesmanship is still annoying .

When snow causes the trains to run off schedule in England, it’s a national embarrassment. Officials fall all over themselves to apologize and promise to take steps to correct the situation as soon as possible. If only the French had the same sort of attitude toward their judicial system. It seems to me that a few loose cannons have gotten together and have managed to become a very public embarrassment to their nation’s system of jurisprudence. I might be able to find room to forgive Bordry for his pompous ignorance? He’s not employed in the legal profession. I’d be okay with chalking up his contribution to this circus with the old saying that, “stupid is as stupid does”. However, Judge “Dog Whisperer” Cassuto, and the anonymous prosecutors types involved, get no such pass. You cannot summon or subpoena a U.S. citizen, who is residing and physically present in the continental United States, via email, the internet, or news media. The fact that the origin of this cluster f%&k is France does not matter. Judge Dog Whisperer, and the prosecuting officials involved in filing the complaint(s), either knew better, or should have, as only a portion of the knowledge base required to be eligible to hold their positions. Ignorance of applicable treaties and the proper protocol for notifying an individual they are needed for questioning, as a witness, or to face criminal charges is gross incompetence. Willfully ignoring applicable treaties and the proper protocol for notifying an individual they are needed for questioning, as a witness, or to face criminal charges is probably criminal, in and of itself?

It’s past time for the French government to end the embarrassment. Removing these clowns (Judge Dog Whisperer and the prosecutor types involved) from office and publicly apologizing to Floyd and Arnie would be a worthy start. For his part, Bordry should be demoted to specimen cup cleaner or be given the option to find employment outside AFLD. Once that is done, a suitable monetary settlement should be executed. It should be one that conveys extent of French government’s regret (on behalf of its rogue employees) for wasting Floyd’s & Arnie’s time, causing them to needlessly be defamed, and to compensate them for any and all legal bills associated with the fiasco.

Are you an expert of french laws?
Did you pretend to know better french laws that Cassuto?

You should be much more modest .

The summon and the warrant don’t need to be communicate to be valid. For the first, people can refuse to be questionned, even being on french soil, the only consequence could be sometimes a warrant would be issue to question them.
An arrest warrant gives police the right to arrest them at any time. That is 2 different things technically independent together.
Cassuto could directly have issue an arrest warrant without summon.
So at the moment Cassuto only knows why he has choosen to issue those arrest warrants. Is it because Baker and Floyd didn’t respond to their summons or is it because he got new evidences about their guilt?

Scooby the dog makes legal history after appearing in court as a witness in a murder case
By Peter Allen

Crime caper: Like the cartoon dog, the animal could play a vital role in the case

A dog named Scooby has created legal history by appearing as a witness in a murder case.

The animal’s 59-year-old owner had been found hanging from the ceiling of her Paris flat. Police believe it was suicide but her family say that it was murder.

The dog was in the flat at the time of the death.

During a preliminary hearing in the city, the pet was led into the witness box by a vet.

A suspect in the case was presented to the dog, to see how it reacted.

It is said to have ‘barked furiously’.

The aim was to decide if there was sufficient evidence to launch a full murder inquiry.

A decision on the case is pending.

The legal first took place in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, with controversial French judge Thomas Cassuto praising the animal for his ‘exemplary behaviour and invaluable assistance.’

The dog, who shares his name with timid cartoon crime-buster Scooby Doo, was believed to have been with his owner during her last hours two-and-a-half years ago.

During the hearing a court clerk was asked to ‘record all of the dog’s barks’ and to note ‘its general behaviour throughout the cross examination’.

Because of its controversial nature, the hearing was held behind closed doors, with public and press excluded.

While prosecution lawyers welcomed the appearance of the dog, others doubted that the animal’s behaviour could be interpreted as legal evidence.

The two-and-a-half years since the death of the animal’s owner are the equivalent of about 17 dog years.

‘That’s a long time for a dog to remember what went on,’ said a legal source close to the case.

‘Getting a pet involved in a case of this nature is a novel idea, but a lot of people are extremely sceptical.

‘It’s a tragic case, but the appearance of the dog did cause a few laughs. He’s naturally been nicknamed Scooby.’

Scooby Doo is the famous animated talking dog who continually solves crime mysteries with the help of four American teenagers. The TV show, which started broadcasting in 1969, is hugely popular around the world, including France and Britain.

A spokesman for the Palais de Justice in Paris confirmed that the Nanterre case was the first time a dog had appeared as a witness in criminal proceedings in France.

You’re right, Jean, a warrant is simply an authorization for the police to arrest someone. The arresting officer merely needs to know that the warrant exists and doesn’t need to have any knowledge of the crime or the probably cause underlying the warrant.

However, the overall thrust of Jeff’s rant is dead on. If the folk in Nanterre really want to question and/or arrest Landis and/or Baker, they are totally ignoring the way to go about it. Whether this is because they are ignorant of the procedures or whether they are choosing to ignore the procedures I couldn’t answer.

As things stand now, Landis and Baker have made the news here for having an arrest warrant issued. Since many of the people who see or hear that fact won’t be bothered to read or listen to the details, they will see this as another mark against Landis. But the French authorities have gained absolutely nothing of legal value: L&B are free to ignore things and as long as they do not set foot on French soil, are not subject to arrest. I doubt that either were planning on visiting France and almost certainly they will not do so now.

It is true that the authorities could obtain an international warrant and then possibly secure extradition. They would have to follow the proper procedures, and they would have to work through the US system too. The US could perhaps refuse to extradite, just as currently the Swiss are refusing to extradite Roman Polanski. Of course, the US could also say “Go ahead and have him” and turn Landis over. The only way to find out is to initiate the procedure.

If all they wanted to do was to question L&B to learn what they might know about this case, I think they probably have just about destroyed any chance that L&B might have cooperated. If they really have to goods on’em, why not jump straight to the international warrant instead of messing around with this essentially meaningless stuff?

Larry King is a tough interview just like Mario Cipollini is a great mountain climber. Nevertheless, he did a reasonably good job on this interview. Thanks for supplying the details on the key witness that Dr. Kay spoke of who was convicted of drug trafficking. Larry King ignore this entirely (good interview indeed). Of courese, this gave me an excuse to drop by knowing you would have the details on this. Thanks.

“I think that the CAS hearings held in New York a couple of years back were the end of the line as far as the doping charges go, short of going into either the Swiss or American judicial system.”

Don’t forget FL dropped his federal case as well, well chronicled at TBV. Likely included some confidentiality provisions as part of some sort of settlement. Now that there are criminal implications, the road gets weirder and weirder.

I sure wish I could understand Jean C. He seems to be trying to make some points about “justice” and “france” in the same sentence, but I’ll be damned if I can make heads or tails out of what he is saying.

Thanks, Rant for the clip. I saw all the stuff on Tiger…then Judge Judy???(DVR’d it) and gave up. Floyd looks great!! And I’m glad to see him wearing OUCH clothing….does this mean, that the OUCH team isn’t really dead???
And I’m with Strbuk, I’ve been watching too much curling…and my new boyfriend seems concerned.
Regarding the warrants….it’s a bunch of crap…..

Take it easy Jean C. I wrote my previous post as a rant and presented it as such. It was intended to be based upon fact while containing a mix of sarcasm and humor. I informally consulted an attorney friend who practices international law. I think I’m on solid ground. Are you an expert on the subject, spent time/energy educating yourself, or have you secured the advise of an expert?

There is at least one treaty that applies, probably two. The treaty I previously referenced (noted by Arnie) outlines the protocol for officials of the French judicial system to notify a foreign national from the USA that he/she has been requested to be available for questioning in an open case or that he/she is being requested to appear as a witness in an open case. The TREATY ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA specifies the manner in which:
a) Floyd and/or Arnie could have been deposed in California, largely on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime. (Floyd/Arnie had/have the option to decline)
b) the French government could have offered to pay for most of the expenses to bring Floyd and/or Arnie to France in order to be questioned in person, and/or to be a witness. (Floyd/Arnie had/have the option to decline)
c) Specifies that persons accepting an invitation to travel to France to be questioned in an open case or persons who act as witnesses in an open case may not be arrested, expressly under the terms of the treaty, so long as they leave France within 15 days. (Article 17. Safe Conduct)
d) The judge or prosecutor(s) in Nanterre are required to make a written request to the French Ministry of Justice. The treaty specifies the information that must be included in the request. The treaty defines officials such as the prosecutor(s) and judge in Nanterre as “Competent Officials”. I find that tidbit to be ironic.
e) Interpol is excluded, under the terms of the treaty, unless “urgency” is agreed to by the Central Authorities – the French Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States. (there is no urgency)
f) “Requests shall be executed in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and the laws of the Requested State.” (Article 8. Execution of Requests) In other words, once the French pass the request on to the USA, the laws of the USA govern. Therefore, Floyd/Arnie would need to be served in person by a qualified service agent. Email, internet, or other news media does not make the cut. Floyd clearly stated on the Larry King Show that he has not been served in any legal capacity.
g) The treaty was signed by Elisabeth Guigou, on behalf of France and Madeleine Albright, on behalf of the USA.

Here is a summary of how the early stages are supposed to work:
1) If the Central Authority in France (French Ministry of Justice) receives a complete and valid written request from a “Competent Authority” (judge/prosecutor[s] in Nanterre) and if the French Ministry of Justice approves the request, then the French Ministry of Justice will request assistance from their Central Authority counterpart in the USA – the “Requested State” (the Attorney General of the United States).
2) If the request is accepted by the Attorney General of the United States, then the Attorney General of the United States designates a competent official to serve a warrant/summons/subpoena to Floyd/Arnie, notifying them of what the French authorities would like them to do. “Requests shall be executed in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and the laws of the Requested State.” (Article 8. Execution of Requests) Again, this is not done via email, internet news, network news or talk shows. They (Floyd/Arnie) would be served by a competent official representative/designee of the United States government and they would typically be served in person. Alternately, they would be served by a process which requires their respective signatures.
3) Once served, and depending upon the content of the request(s), Floyd/Arnie would need to decide what they would like to do. They have options which they may accept or decline.

There is an absence of news reporting how the Nanterre judge and/or prosecutor(s) have utilized, or attempted to utilize, the applicable treaty.

Given the lack of news reporting how the Nanterre authorities, hypothetically, followed the terms of the treaty, it is doubtful they actually did follow the requirements contained within the treaty.

Further, given that it is reported that Judge Cassuto has issued an arrest warrant for Floyd, it is clear he is acting outside the terms/requirements of the treaty.

Did they really want to question Floyd/Arnie and/or use them as witnesses?

Or….. did they [Bordry, Nanterre prosecutor(s), Cassuto] want to effectively ban Floyd/Arnie from visiting France and make sure, god forbid, that Floyd will not race his bike in France again?

I used to dismiss conspiracy theories associated with Floyd and the 2006 TdF. I’m not so sure I can be so dismissive now? It’s beginning to look like a duck. It’s starting to walk like a duck. And I think I can hear a duck quacking faintly in the distance?

Thanks Old Runner Guy.
I referenced the Dog Whisperer Judge in my recent rant and in an earlier post in this thread or previous thread.
I think we can at least characterize Judge Thomas Cassuto as being “eccentric”.

I am not sure, but it is possible that privacy issues might prevent the US AG from revealing whether or not the French (or any other) authorities have lodged any request. Landis or Baker might be able to make a request whether or not such a request has been made with respective to each as an individual, and to release to the public the result of such a request.

An industrious blogger could forward a FOIA request to the US AG’s office to obtain any related records.

What concerns me more is when and if we will see Floyd racing again. I still believe in the guy, but he left a team willing to employ him even after something of a lackluster season. Not sure what’s on his mind.

Thanks for taking the time to do that summation. Seems like there’s a clearly defined process on how to get testimony from foreign nationals who reside outside the country seeking the testimony.

Jean,

I’m not sure I follow your line of reasoning. It’s clear that for whatever reason, Judge Cassuto wants to talk to Floyd and Arnie. Issuing the standard summons that might be applied to a resident of France doesn’t seem like it would be effective, given that the people he seeks to question live outside the country. So what would be the point of doing so, when there is a treaty and a process that would allow him to get that testimony, either through depositions taken in the US or by the French government bringing the two men to France under the terms of the treaty?

Unless he seeks to arrest the two and charge them with the hacking, that seems to be the approach to take, no? On the other hand, if he seeks to charge the two with the hacking of LNDD, there are extradition laws that should apply.

So what purpose has the judge or the prosecutor’s actions served so far? I’m puzzled, to say the least.

eightzero,

It’s a puzzle as to why Floyd left OUCH. Of course, OUCH is no longer the sponsor, and there’s a rumor that perhaps the new sponsor asked Momentum Sports Group to either release Floyd or buy out his contract. And then there’s the whole Rock Racing connection. If Rock had gotten their Pro Continental license, it could have played right into the official press release’s narrative. But, as we know, that didn’t quite work out.

Might take a bit to file an FOIA request (I have one other which I need to get around to, totally unrelated to Floyd or anything to do with sports or doping), but it’s certainly an option.

Thank you, Mr. Rant, for mentioning that Floyd was going to be on Thursday’s Larry King show. I did see the post in time to catch the repeat, because I’m vain and I was checking to see if anyone followed up on my comment. (I don’t post very much. But I always read your blog.) I see that Jeff apparently enjoyed it most – so Jeff, this is for you, a transcript available exclusively here and nowhere else – of Judge Thomas “Dog Whisperer” Cassuto’s second attempt to obtain evidence from a dog. As before, due to the unconventional nature of the proceeding, the depositions took place in Judge Cassuto’s chambers, with only the witnesses and court officials being present.

CADEL EVANS enters, carrying a small bag containing a very small animal.
CASSUTO: M. Evans, do you make mockery of this court? I order you to be accompanied by your dog, not a rat.
EVANS [with great dignity]: This is my dog.
CASSUTO: Indeed? I cannot see from here. Place it on this carpet at my feet that I may interrogate it.
EVANS: Listen, mate, if you step on my dog’s rights, I’ll chop your head off.
CASSUTO [Hesitates]: On second thought, I find this animal has no relevant testimony to offer. M. Evans is excused. [EVANS exits.] Now summon Lance Armstrong and his dog.
CLERK: Hélas, M. Armstrong has not appeared today.
CASSUTO: Quoi? Then bring me the international arrest warrant to sign.
CLERK: The national arrest warrant.
CASSUTO: Yes, yes, I have said. Tout suite!
CLERK: But we have received a letter from his avocat.
CASSUTO: Oh, indeed?
CLERK: In it he recounts that unfortunately M. Armstrong has no dog.
CASSUTO: [Pause.] I find this highly suspicious.
CLERK: But he writes that M. Armstrong intends to obtain a dog this summer.
CASSUTO: Ha, that is better.
CLERK: Yes, here it is. “In July Lance Armstrong will make El Pistolero his bitch.”
CASSUTO: Then we shall examine M. Armstrong in July. Who is the next witness?
ALBERTO CONTADOR enters, being dragged by an enormous St. Bernard.
CASSUTO: M. Contador, be seated. Is this the animal which you were awarded for your victory in the Tour de France of 2009 in Verbier?
CONTADOR: Si, the stage I won. The dog I won also. And also the Tour.
CASSUTO: This dog has been in your possession since that day?
CONTADOR: Si.
CASSUTO: He appears to be a highly intelligent animal. Let us see how cooperative he can be. I wish to ask about the day of the time trial in Annecy. You had this animal with you on that day?
CONTADOR: Si.
CASSUTO: This was the day when your brother drove you to the start of the time trial because you did not wish to travel with the Astana team?
CONTADOR: Si. I would rather have gone alone in an Astana car but Lance Armstrong took all the cars to meet his friends and relatives at the airport. I was indignant. Lance Armstrong had a new time trial bicycle and new bicycle tires and a new baby and I had none of these things from Bruyneel. My team did not treat me with the proper respect. But I had a St. Bernard and Lance Armstrong did not, and I won the stage and Armstrong did not, and I won the Tour de France and Armstrong did not.
CASSUTO: M. Contador, this is what I wish to ask your dog. After the other members of the Astana team left and you remained at the hotel – Dog! What did your master do after the team left the hotel?
[The ST. BERNARD looks at CONTADOR attentively. He takes the coiled-up leash CONTADOR holds and places it on CONTADOR’s lap. He then fetches the bidon autographed by VALVERDE and places it in CONTADOR’s hand. He then barks once and prances in place.]
CASSUTO: M. Contador, consider yourself under arrest. It is clear from the testimony of this invaluable witness that you have trained this dog to fetch your blood bag and tube, your equipement of perfusion!
CONTADOR: We went for a walk! I put him on a leash! I took a bidon along!
CLERK: M. le juge, unfortunately the police cannot arrest M. Contador, they are on strike . . .

Sorry about that, meant to comment on the Dog Whisperer story, too. That was a stitch. This is even better. Great sendup!

IllinoisFrank,

Glad to see you back. King isn’t the toughest of interviewers, to be sure. He’s no Mike Wallace. But he did respectably enough. Wish he’d given Floyd a bit more time on the show. But (the clip above doesn’t show this) he did say “We’ll have you back on again.” Not sure if he really meant it. But we’ll see.

One comment on something in the interview.. about FL going to France to face the questioning on hacking.. I think that’s an extremely bad idea. Even if he can afford the trip.
1. They probably won’t let him leave.
2. The system failed him already, think its gonna work this time around?
3. Judge may bring previous expert witness “ScoobyDoo” to testify against him.. word is Shaggy has been getting scooby-snacks from Joe P. and GL.

Indeed, since there is a national arrest warrant out for him, going to France would subject him to possible arrest. I am not sure how that would mesh with the provision of the treaty Jeff discusses, where if you are summoned for questioning, you can’t be arrested within a 15 day period. I presume that the treaty provisions would tromp the warrant, unless Landis/Baker stayed over the allotted time, or entered France not under provisions of the treaty.

One thing I don’t see in Jeff’s discussion of the treaty provisions is what rights would obtain. If Landis/Baker were deposed in the US, would all rights provided by US law and Constitution apply, i.e., right to a lawyer, protection against self-incrimination, etc.? Conversely, if they were summoned to French soil, would they then forfeit these rights, to whatever extent the French system differs from ours?

If I were either of them, I would not go willingly, but would consider being deposed here in the US.

While anyone is certainly free to speculate on what Landis/Baker’s actions in respect to all this might or might not indicate about their guilt, we can in no way make any legal conclusion from their actions. Perfectly innocent people may not wish to subject themselves to questioning for a variety of reasons.

And as a side note, going to French soil would not require a trans-Atlantic trip. The islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre are part of France, yet located just south of Newfoundland, Canada.

It would make the most sense for the French prosecutor(s) and/or judge to depose Floyd/Arnie in the USA. It costs them almost nothing, except the time/energy to make their case to the French Ministry of Justice in writing. The lion’s share of the cost for hypothetically deposing Floyd/Arnie in the USA is born by the taxpayers of the USA.
(Article 23. Costs) spells out which country bears the expenses, depending upon the actual situation. Also see Article 23 (1) on page #83.

If Floyd/Arnie travel to France voluntarily, then they are subject to the “national arrest warrant”, assuming there actually is such a warrant for each. They would be smart to enter the country only under the protection of the treaty, if either/both are going to travel to France. (Article 16. Appearance in the Requesting State, #3) and (Article 17. Safe Conduct)

(Article 8. Execution of Requests) indicates Floyd/Arnie would enjoy the usual protections afforded citizens of the USA. They would also be subject to their usual responsibilities as they apply to Federal Law in the USA.

On going to go out on a limb here and guess that the treaty is not being utilized because:
A) Submission to the French Ministry of Justice would elicit laughter because of the petty and insignificant nature of the subject matter.
B) Declaring a unilateral “national arrest warrant” achieves other goals, such as publicity and effectively banning the pair from visiting France.
C) Additionally, it effectively bans Floyd from racing his bike in France.

An article on Tuesday about the issuing of an arrest warrant in France for the United States cyclist Floyd Landis in connection with a computer data hacking case from 2006 misstated the suspicions of investigators after a security breach at the French antidoping lab that tested Landis’s urine samples from the 2006 Tour de France. Investigators found that an e-mail message sent to another lab in an apparent effort to discredit the Châtenay-Malabry antidoping lab — the message included nonpublic documents from Landis’s Tour testing, the first indication that the French lab had been hacked — had originated from the same Internet Protocol address used by Arnie Baker, then Landis’s coach; they did not conclude that a Trojan horse program used to download files remotely from the lab could have originated from an e-mail message sent from Baker’s computer. (In fact, a French computer specialist, Alain Quiros, has confessed to the hacking.)

Well, I always felt that neither Landis nor Baker was the actual hacker. However, it still is possible that one or the other commissioned the hacking, although I personally doubt it. But it is not entirely unreasonable for the French authorities to direct some investigations in that direction.

There is one more question to be addressed: if Landis and/or Baker received the allegedly hacked documents innocently, without being involved either directly or indirectly with the hacking, do they have any criminal liability? A charge relating to “stolen property” would not seem to be possible, since there was not any tangible property actually stolen. Could there be a copyright issue? And does LNDD or AFLD now admit that these documents are indeed legitimate? As I recall, back in 2006, when the documents were published, their authenticity was questioned. If they are indeed fakes, then they are not evidence of any crime, unless so faking documents itself is a crime.

The French could extradite or question them. They have chosen to do neither. Why? I believe it is because they are not interested in what they say and are more interested in generating negative headlines (specifically LNDD chief Bordry that has clearly lied about the AB and FL connection).

If “stolen property” is the angle, why stop with them? Why not arrest TBV, or this site, or me for emailing them to a friend. In fact, the French could arrest most of the America cycling community under this rationale. Then they would be one step closer to winning their own tour!

What was reported by press and especially by Ayotte is that she received faked/forged documents probably build with real documents (mix between correct french and dubious french).

Distributing stolen documents is not a serious crime especially if it’s done to fight an injustice, that is often done openly.

But to forge stolen documents to defame an entity is probably a much more serious fault, especially if done anonymously after a hacking.

ORG,
How do you dare to say that Bordry has clearly lied when his words were translated and reported by reporters? Until you are able to provide the full transcript, you should be more carefull in your statement.
Between what he has undestood about the hacking process from Cassuto’s office, what he wanted to say, what he told, how it was understood, then translate, then written, then read and fianlly understood, there is a lot of possible errors.
On this blog, we have followed that story since it has broken.

The facts, as mainly reported, are that:
* LNDD was hacked by Quiros who was ordered by english speaker and to seek informations about specific Landis’ case.
* emails with forged documents were sent originating from Baker’s IP adress
* Baker used stolen documents during his show
* Baker and Landis have been requested for questionning, only Landis denies it
* national warrants have been issued against Baker and Landis by prosecutor

This entire episode start with Brodry opening his mouth last week. He is the only reason we know anything about the warrants. And, at every turn, he has gotten basic facts wrong, requiring the French court and the New York Times to correct his original statements. And, in every case, his inaccurate statements served to soil Landis already tarnished reptuation.

You’re right, Bordry might have been misunderstood. But, it was not his place to open his mouth in the first place. And given the repuational damage the Landis case brought about to his lab, and the fact his lab is losing clients (latest: the Tour announced last month the LNDD will NOT perform the test for the 2010 race), he looks like a desperate man lashing out at an adversary that caused him harm.

No one wrote “internationl warrant”, I do believe that it is a mistake of foreign reporters having not understood Bordry’s statement.

Better to be cautious when language play a role, I have seen an other similar mistake but not important when english reporters misunderstood, maybe a bad translation service, Alonso’s spanish words, “all” english newspapers were wrong the next day!
It was similar during Landis’ hearing, translation plays a big role.

The reason? A search in late 2006 by French investigators of the lab’s compromised computers found a “Trojan horse” program that allowed the hackers to access and download files. Further investigations by French justice officials determined that the program probably got into the lab’s system via an e-mail sent from an IP address allegedly traced to Landis’ coach Arnie Baker — a physician who defended Landis by questioning the credibility of Bordry’s lab. Judge Thomas Cassuto wants to question both Landis and Baker about the hacking. “These two men were convoked a first time by the judge, but did not deign to respond,” Bordry told TIME, explaining why Cassuto decided to issue an arrest warrant for Landis. Bordry says a similar arrest warrant had already been issued for Baker in November 2009.

—

read the last sentence … BORDRY TOLD TIME!! Can it be any clearer that Bordry is the source of this inaccurate description? See the NY Times correction link above, this is totally incorrect.

Bordry is a liar. I don’t need to watch my portrayals of him. He needs to stop lying.

Here’s the thing that puzzles me: Why is Bordry explaining the judge’s decision, as the Time reporter puts it? Bordry may have been giving his impression of the judge’s reasoning, or offering his interpretation of what the judge said. That seems to me a better characterization of what the head of AFLD said to the reporter.

But it also seems to me that the reporter should have attempted to get the explanation straight from the horse’s mouth. And since the reporter was actually reporting from Paris, that shouldn’t have been hard to do. Now, it’s possible that the judge wouldn’t comment on his reasoning for the warrants. That’s his prerogative. Bordry’s opinions, though, should be noted in the article as being second-hand.

As for Landis not receiving anything formally, there are some possible explanations. Arnie Baker received at least one letter from French authorities last year. Suppose that the authorities sent a similar letter to Landis, but they sent it to an address where he no longer lives (remember, unfortunately, that this ordeal in some ways led to a divorce, and he lives “in a shack behind the car wash” as Neil Browne describes Landis’ new residence, somewhat tongue-in-cheek). Depending on who lives at that address, and whether they know Floyd’s forwarding address, he may actually not have received the same letter that Arnie did.

Still, this all leaves me puzzled about why Judge Cassuto didn’t use the current treaty as a means to acquire Landis’ and Baker’s testimony. It seems the logical thing to do. Or perhaps he has to go through this rigamarole before following through on that approach?

Whatever the case, the judge has either been silent or not interviewed (at least in the English-language press). M. Bordry seems to be the one who set this story in motion, whatever his reasons for doing so might be. I’m puzzled that the media, though, haven’t attempted to get the judge’s comments. Those are far more pertinent than whatever M. Bordry’s interpretation or explanation might be.

Whatever the French authorities might have sent Landis, he is under no obligation whatsoever to respond. He could say “Yeah, I got the notice to appear but they can shove it” and there is absolutely nothing the French can do about it. So I’m thinking he didn’t get anything, since he has little reason to deny it. Could be as Rant speculates, it didn’t get forwarded to him. Could be lost in the mail, stranger things have happened. Occasionally I get mail that is for another address, maybe same number on a different street, also there is a Thornbrook St. while I live on Thornridge. I try to make sure these get where they are supposed to go, but not everyone is so inclined.

I’ve done a little research on “International Arrest Warrant” and to tell the truth, couldn’t find much. There is an International Criminal Court, but it apparently confines itself to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. None of these apply to the Landis case. There is a European Arrest Warrant that seems to be only valid in countries that are part of the EU. Maybe that’s what they are talking about. I guess that if they obtained such a EAW and Landis and/or Baker traveled to any of the EU countries, they could be arrested.

If the French want to actually arrest and try Landis/Baker, they will have to file for extradition. An interesting fact I discovered is that France does not allow its citizens to be extradited. Anyway, if France did file for extradition, it is not a given that the US would in fact extradite either gentleman.

If the documents in question are in fact forged in any manner, and this forgery was done to defame LNDD, then it would be libel, which is not a crime in the US but rather a tort, which is a civil matter. LNDD presumably could sue but that is all. Libel is a very complicated thing in the US, since each of our 50 states has its own laws.

The first cite notes that Judge Thomas Cassuto is the Vice-President to the court of Nanterre and was a speaker at the Institute of Melun on January 21, 2010. The topic was entitled, “the Fight against cybercriminality”.

As for the second cite, the electronic translations are kind of rough and my skill at reading French is limited. From what I can see, the article rehashes the theories of the “hacking” and mentions the theory of Arnie assuming the cyber identity of “Mr. Crepin”. Judge Cassuto appears to be mentioned three times. Other than the fact that he is a judge, there is nothing remarkable associated with his mention.

Floyd is pictured and mentioned at least one other time. Here is the electronically translated quote under the pic: “After the Tour de France 2006, Floyd Landis was declared positive with testosterone. Its coach tried to prove that he was not doped.”

Here are the other mentions of Floyd/Arnie via electronic translation: “July 2006. Shortly after its victory in the Tour de France, the American cyclist Floyd Landis is declared positive with testosterone by the National laboratory of tracking of the doping of Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), whose AFLD ensures the supervision. However, on October 23, a clap of thunder falls down on this same laboratory: its person in charge, Francoise Lasne, learn by his counterpart Canadian Christiane Ayotte that mysterious Norman Crepin, of which it received email, blames the reliability of the analyses carried out on Landis. This quite informed man has even confidential documents coming from the French laboratory!
Having a presentiment of a company of destabilization, Pierre Bordry, owner of the AFLD, carries felt sorry for in November 2006. The PJ discovers whereas, under the identity of undertaking Mr. Crepin, in fact certain Arnie Baker hides, which is different… only the coach of Landis! By presenting to its manner the data resulting from the French laboratory, Baker hoped, seems it, to clear its runner.” The only remarkable fact is the article indicates/implies the content of the documents that Arnie used in his “wiki presentations” – with disclaimers, and were not used in the Malibu hearing, were authentic. YMMV.

This doesn’t seem to clarify points of disagreement or add any new information to the debate? What was your point in citing the articles Jean C?